Improving home safety in people with dementia following hospital discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
H professionals practicing in geriatric units routinely assess their patients with dementia prior to hospital discharge for their ability to perform safely their daily living activities. The aim of this assessment is to know what type of home care services are needed when they will return in their living environment. Because of a home visit cannot usually be done prior to discharge, this assessment is performed in hospital. This situation raised two questions: One is to what extent the risks assessed and the home care services recommended in hospital setting prior to discharge truly reflect and predict home safety; and second is how can we improve home safety in people with dementia following hospital discharge. Based on a systematic review and an international panel of experts, our data suggest that some risks (such as fire) may be overestimated while others (such inappropriate medication intake) may be underestimated before hospital discharge. These results may be explained by the characteristics of the assessment setting (unfamiliarity of the context), differences in clinicians, patients and caregivers’ perceptions and values toward ethical challenges (safety vs. autonomy) and difficult to predict how safety issues will change in the months following hospital discharge (progression of the disease, reduction of delirium). Developing a clinical decision tool to support assessment and management of risks by health professionals as well as optimizing transitions of care (through case manager and technological aid) may help to improve home safety in people with dementia following hospital discharge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".